Agenda, decisions and minutes

Please note this meeting may be filmed or recorded by the Council for live or subsequent broadcast via the Council’s internet site or by anyone attending the meeting using any communication method.  Although we ask members of the public recording, filming or reporting on the meeting not to include the public seating areas, members of the public attending the meeting should be aware that we cannot guarantee that they will not be filmed or recorded by others attending the meeting.  Members of the public participating in the meeting (e.g. making deputations, asking questions, making oral protests) should be aware that they are likely to be filmed, recorded or reported on.  By entering the meeting room and using the public seating area, you are consenting to being filmed and to the possible use of those images and sound recordings.

The Chair of the meeting has the discretion to terminate or suspend filming or recording, if in his or her opinion continuation of the filming, recording or reporting would disrupt or prejudice the proceedings, infringe the rights of any individual, or may lead to the breach of a legal obligation by the Council.

The Chair referred Members present to agenda item 1 as shown on the agenda in respect of filming at this meeting, and Members noted the information contained therein.

None.

The Chair will consider the admission of any late items of urgent business. (Late items will be considered under the agenda item where they appear. New items will be considered at item 7 below).

None.

None.

The Chair will explain the procedure that the Committee will follow for the hearing considered under the Licensing Act 2003. A copy of the procedure is attached.

NOTED the procedure summary for Licensing Sub-Committee hearings, pages 1-2 of the agenda pack), which the Chair introduced drawing attention to the four licensing objectives

To consider an application for a new premises licence.

The committee carefully considered the application for a new premises licence, the representations of the Police, Public Health, and Licensing Authority as responsible authorities, the representations made by the Applicant and his representative, the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and the Licensing Act 2003 s182 guidance.

Having heard the parties’ evidence, the Committee resolved to refuse to grant the application for a new premises licence.

The committee heard evidence that the premises had previously sold alcohol without a licence and was of the opinion that public safety and the risks to public health, in an area of acute alcohol problems, would be exacerbated if a licence was granted for a premises that showed little sign of willingness to work with the licensing authority in limiting the risks associated with the unlicensed and unregulated sale of alcohol. 

In addition the licensing sub committee heard that the premises had previously been engaged in the unlawful sale of a bladed article to a minor. This was a serious matter which in the opinion of the committee showed that the licence holder and those associated with the premises would have insufficient regard to the need to protect children from harm.

The applicant’s evidence to the committee was that he had no prior involvement with the premises and was only going to become involved with the premises once a premises licence had been granted.  The committee did not consider this evidence as credible, particularly since the applicant had by his own admission no current involvement financial or otherwise with the premises. The committee’s view was that once licensed, the premises would not require any further involvement from the applicant. 

The committee’s view was that there was a significant risk that those currently operating the premises, and who had already demonstrated disregard for the licensing objectives, would be in a position to employ a Designated Premises Supervisor and continue trading without the applicant’s involvement once a licence was granted.

The Applicant was very vague in response to matters put to him at the licensing sub committee hearing and seemed to be unable to answer basic questions regarding the level of his involvement with the premises, the use of CCTV and whether he had previously met the Police at the premises unequivocally.

The evidence put before the committee regarding which members of the applicant’s family had been involved in particular incidents was at best vague and not credible.

In all the circumstances, the committee was not satisfied that licensing objectives relating to the protection of children from harm and prevention of crime and disorder were unlikely to be upheld if a licence was granted.

The committee only made its decision after having heard all the parties’ representations and considered that its decision to refuse a premises license was appropriate and proportionate

RECEIVED the application for the premises licence as detailed on pages 8 to 22 of the agenda pack.

a.         Licensing Officer’s Introduction

The licensing officer, Daliah Barrett, introduced the application for a new premises licence for the supply of alcohol off the premises, referring to the documents in the agenda pack.

NOTED that the premises had operated as a newsagent but now sought the ability to sell alcohol. Enforcement Officers visited the premises in October 2016 following reports that unauthorised alcohol sales had taken place. A subsequent warning letter was sent to the premises and a follow up visit found no alcohol being sold from the premises. The premises licence application was submitted following the follow up visit. The Committee was advised that the matter was previously listed for hearing in January but was postponed due to the applicant being unable to attend.

NOTED that the applicant was going to be the DPS but did not hold a Personal Licence. The matter had been through the 28 day consultation period and that representations from Public Health and the Metropolitan Police were received and were attached at appendix 2 of the report. The agent acting on behalf of the applicant requested that a sample of emails be made available for the Committee to show why the Public Health representation was not accepted, this was included at appendix 3 of the agenda pack.

In response to a question from the Committee regarding the credibility of the training and operation manual that was submitted, Ms Barrett advised that the proposed document included the relevant information but that the test was the extent to which the applicant understood its contents and implemented the procedures contained therein.

b.         Police Representation

NOTED the representation by Mark Greaves on behalf of the Metropolitan Police, including that:

On 3^rd November 2016 the premises was visited by Haringey Council Enforcement Officer Charles Buckle; it was found that alcohol was on display without a licence (as per photo exhibit MG1). Mr Buckle informed the member of staff present, a Mr Anil Patel that no alcohol sales were allowed and to remove all alcohol on display. Mr Buckle also noted that there was also a large quantity of other assorted alcohol being stored in the back room.

The premises was also visited under a Metropolitan Police London wide operation dealing with test purchasing of knives to underage people on 23^rd January 2017 and failed the test purchasing by selling a Stanley knife to an underage Police Cadet making no attempt to ascertain their age by requesting identification. This matter was subject to further enforcement action by the Trading Standards Team.

Whilst the sale of knives was not a licensable activity, the sale of any age restricted products to underage young people showed that there was insufficient management control at the premises. This lack of control undermined the licensing objectives coupled with the fact that the premises were found to be selling alcohol without a licence for a period of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

N/A